Extensions for senior officials are drawing charges of arbitrariness and favouritism.

advertisement

N K Singh

January 31, 1997

ISSUE DATE: January 31, 1997

UPDATED: April 16, 2013 17:24 IST

If it is the bureaucracy that holds the mirror to a government, its current state presents a sorry and patchy image of the United Front (UF) Government. Some would say it is a reflection of the tenuousness of the 13-party coalition.

Indeed, as a senior bureaucrat in North Block puts it, "The time has come when even secretaries to the Government of India are on daily wages." The reference is obviously to Union Home Secretary K. Padmanabhaiah, who has been asked to continue after he reached superannuation on October 31, 1996, in the typically vague terminology of officialdom, "till further orders".

For over eight weeks, Padmanabhaiah left his office every evening
perhaps not knowing whether he would be required to be back in office
the next morning.

Until January 3, 1997, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC)
granted him a year's extension, reportedly at the prime minister's
insistence since the 1961-batch Maharashtra-cadre officer was known to
have an uneasy relationship with Home Minister Indrajit Gupta.

Lucky mandarins: Subramaniam, Basak and Padmanabhaiah. Subramaniam has got a year's extension as cabinet secretary; Basak three extensions as Bihar chief secretary; and Padmanabhaiah a year's, as Union home secretary.

In the seven months it has been in power, the UF Government has extended the services of 20 retiring civil servants. Perhaps never in the country's history have the three topmost civil servants been officers on extension: Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramaniam and Foreign Secretary Salman Haider apart from Padmanabhaiah himself.

When Subramaniam was appointed cabinet secretary in August last year, he had five months of service left. Last month he got a year's extension from the ACC while Haider had been granted an extension by the P. V. Narasimha Rao government.

Though the nature of the cabinet secretary's job requires time to settle in, there has never been a fixed tenure-the reason why the Administrative Reforms Committee has recommended a three-year tenure.

Extensions are being justified on the grounds that an official needs a long tenure to get a grip on a department's problems.

The extension phenomenon is a natural corollary of this. Subramaniam's predecessor, Surendra Singh, was also granted a one-year extension. "Giving an extension to a cabinet secretary makes his position untenable and open to all sorts of rumours and allegations," says former cabinet secretary B.G. Deshmukh. Deshmukh was offered an extension in 1989 but refused it.

The rules prescribe extensions only in "rare and exceptional circumstances", and purely in "public interest". The service rules also lay down three conditions: the successor not being "ripe enough" for the job; the successor not having been identified; or the retiring officer being of outstanding merit. Of these, at least one has to be applicable.

Seasoned bureaucrats are lukewarm to the extension syndrome. "Extension is based on the premise that the officer who has got it is heads and shoulders above others. It simply cannot be true. Everyone who passed the competitive examination in that particular batch possesses more or less equal abilities," says retired IAS officer M.N. Buch. What really matters is knowing the right people. "Officers normally get extensions because they are close to politicians," says Buch. An obvious rider to this: a pliable bureaucracy.

The policy gives rise to much heartburn since extensions mean not only delayed promotions for others but also no promotions in certain cases. For example, more than a dozen officers of the 1965 batch are waiting for elevation to the rank of secretary; in the normal course, this should have happened five years ago.

The rather specious argument that a long tenure is necessary for a grip on a department's problems and policies is often forwarded to justify extensions. Another contention is that extensions provide continuity in an uncertain political climate. "Once Subramaniam was appointed the cabinet secretary with only five months to retire, he had to be given an extension," says a senior official.

Examples abound. In the few days that Atal Bihari Vajpayee was prime minister, he not only appointed Ranjan Roy as chief of RAW but also gave him extension for nine months beyond September 1996, when he was due to retire. In the states-where governments are allowed to give six months' extension on their own-the situation is worse.

In Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Bihar, the chief secretaries are on extension. Maharashtra Chief Secretary D.K. Afzulpurkar, a 1962-batch officer who should have retired in August last year, was given an extension though his name figured in the controversial Mumbai Port Trust deal. Bihar Chief Secretary A.K. Basak, a 1961-batch officer, should have retired in July 1995 but has got three extensions till now.

A classic case was that of former special secretary (home) V.K. Jain, who was on extension for three years. And when the director of the Intelligence Bureau, D.C. Pathak, was summarily removed last August, no replacement was made. The next incumbent, Abhijit Mitra, was asked to officiate till he retired in September, reflecting perhaps the Government's indecisiveness.

Giving plum postings to retiring officers is another pernicious practice. The appointment of former commerce secretary Tejinder Khanna, a 1961-batch Punjab cadre officer, as the new Lt-Governor of Delhi illustrates the point.

When Khanna retired on the last day of 1996, two other senior officers retired too-former mines secretary A.C. Sen, who belonged to the 1962-batch of the same cadre, and health secretary J.C. Panta, a 1961-batch Uttar Pradesh-cadre officer. The fact that Khanna was selected for the coveted post days after his retirement gave rise to speculation regarding his proximity to the powers that be. Reshuffles of officials, mostly on political grounds, are largely responsible for the politicisation of the bureaucracy.

Till recently the malaise was mostly confined to states, with Uttar Pradesh leading the pack. The Kalyan Singh-led BJP government had transferred 460 IAS officers between June 1991 and December 1992. Mulayam Singh Yadav's government shifted 321 IAS officials during a similar 18-month tenure, while Mayawati transferred 190 officials in her first month in office and 1,263 civil servants during her three-month tenure. Little wonder why, from the Centre to the states, the steel frame of the country's once redoubtable civil services is being steadily corroded.